Frames of references from unitarist/plurarist view

 

People have all manner of opinions about the events, those people witness in day-to-day lives (Abbott, 2006). Such opinions are invariably shaped by those people’s family and school circumstances, the jobs those people hold and the organizations work for, the churches and clubs they patronize, the circle of friends and communities that people belong to, and so on (Abbott, 2006). Because work is such a central part in people’s lives, its nature and governance are one social phenomenon that often invokes intensely passionate debate (Abbott, 2006). Such debates are frequently ‘framed’ in terms of the assumptions and values people use as ‘reference’ points when conceptualizing the nature and governance of work (Abbott, 2006). Hence the term ‘frames of reference’, a conceptual device first coined by Fox (1966, 1974) as a means of categorizing the different opinions held by people towards such issues (Abbott, 2006). Fox claimed that three such frames of reference captured the main currents of opinion, which Fox defined in terms of the unitarist, pluralist and Marxist credentials. In seeking to lend a more precise understanding of what Fox meant by ‘frames of reference’ concept, consider the following story (Abbott, 2006):

 

Two people are standing on a hillside, one is a writer of romantic novels, the other is a scientist. Both are looking westwards at the end of a wonderful spring day. The writer turns to the scientist and says to her, ‘I love watching the sun go down and the blaze of color it stretches across the sky’. The scientists say, ‘I would too if that was what I was witnessing’. ‘What do you mean?’ enquires the writer. ‘Well’, the scientist responds, drawing on her scientific experience. ‘I am not watching the sun go down at all. What I am seeing is the earth turning. The sun is going nowhere – it is we who are moving in relation to the sun. Moreover, it is not the sun that is blazing color across the sky, strictly speaking, it is refracted light from the sun that is bouncing across the outer layer of the earth’s atmosphere at a particular angle.’ The writer retorted despondently, ‘Is it any wonder that science takes the romance out of life’ (Abbott, 2006).

 The point of this story is to demonstrate how two people can look at the same phenomenon and yet reach two very different conclusions about what this writer and scientist are observing (Abbott, 2006). Both are witnessing the same sunset as an undeniable fact, yet each is drawing on very different assumptions and values to reach conclusions – in this instance, one based on experiential reflection, the other on detached rationality (Abbott, 2006). It is this meaning that Fox (1966, 1974) applies to the ‘frames of reference’ concept, namely, that different assumptions and values about the nature of work, workplace relations and workplace conflict lead to different theoretical and explanatory conclusions about what is going on (Abbott, 2006). The remainder of this section looks at the three categories of assumptions identified by Fox, as well as theories and concepts that fall within that two people’s various ambits (Abbott, 2006).

 

Theories and the application

Theories are ‘an attempt to bind together in a systematic fashion the knowledge that one has of some particular aspect of the world of experience’ (Honderich, 1995). It can be made up of connected law-like statements and/or behavioral postulates which make claims about the real world, or it can be constituted by conceptual categorizations that serve to systematically organize disconnected facts about observable phenomena (Abbott, 2006). In whatever manifestation, for a predictive or explanatory theory to say anything there must be a relationship between the statements made, the methods used to make such statements, and the frame of reference deployed to inform such methods (Abbott, 2006). In each of these respects there are issues pertaining to the nature of reality (i.e., ontology) and how knowledge of that reality is possible (i.e., epistemology), the adoption of which will encourage the use of particular methods and the kinds of statements it is possible for a theory to make (Abbott, 2006). To put it another way, the methods used, and the conclusions reached via the use of theory are inescapably presupposed by some form of ontological and epistemological reasoning – in short, by the type of conceptual view one holds of the world (Abbott, 2006). What frame of reference is accepted, whether realized or not, is of no small importance. In the above we can note the very different conclusions one might reach about the management of labor when applying theories informed by unitarist assumptions as opposed to those informed by pluralist assumptions (Abbott, 2006). The point to be made here is that awareness of these differences is necessary if analysis is to take account of its limitations and/or make explicit it taken-for-granted or background assumptions (Abbott, 2006). That said, there is no single model for how this might be achieved, but one that may provide some guide as to how theory might be applied to practice is given in the following (Abbott, 2006).

1. Theory – set out the details of the theory (or model/framework/concept/definition), including the key variables, categorical features, assumptions and any causal linkages between them.

2. Evidence – set out the evidence of the real-world circumstances or events that are seeking to apply the theory (or model/framework/concept/definition) to.

3. Evaluation – weigh the evidence of (2) against the details of (1), noting any similarities and differences.

4. Application – use the evaluation of (3) to guide the analysis by using any differences in (3) to suggest what might be done to change the circumstances of (2) to match the theoretical premises of (1)

References

Abbott, K, 2006, in A Review of employment relations theories and their application, Problems and Perspectives in Management

 

Fox, A, 1966, Industrial Sociology and Industrial Relations, Research Paper 3, Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employer Association, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, London

 

Fox, A, 1974, Beyond Contract: Work, Power and Trust Relationships, Faber and Faber, London

 

Honderich, T, 1995, The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.